Search results

:hug: For all therapeutic solutions, NICE rated all clinical trials as providing weak or very weak quality medical evidence, without exception. It is worse than even that. The vast majority (89%, IIRC) were rated as very weak, and the remainder as weak.

And please provide a robust definition of overactive, in this context.

It is like there are two different people writing their stuff, who never talk to each other.

He is an epidemiologist, was a professor in evidence synthesis for two decades, and is currently an emeritus prof in the same position, and has done a lot of work on systematic reviews and with the WHO, etc. He of all people should know what constitutes robust methodology. He has no excuse...

What is the evidence that 1) it is "overactive", and 2) is the primary problem, not an appropriate response to, nor an unavoidable consequence of, a more fundamental and serious problem, and 3) is amenable to 'brain retraining' that consistently delivers a meaningful practical benefit, let...

I don't think that is true. Directly or indirectly, concerns about methodology (which measurement definitely falls under) is the basic underlying issue dealt with here about almost everything coming out of the research. Particularly for the psycho-behavioural stuff, as they are by far the...

Yep. If you are going to be basing your claim on your own personal anecdote, then that data is as subject to scrutiny and criticism as any other form of data. And your methodology even more so.

Exactly. ----------- Multidisciplinary clinics have emerged to provide comprehensive management strategies to patients with Long COVID. Based on absolutely no robust evidence whatsoever that these clinics either understand or have any helpful advice to offer.

My family had one of the exceptions, not too many years back. Took a while for everybody required to give permission, we had an old guard v. new guard conflict in professional advice. But after years of nasty treatment-resistant symptoms there were no options left, and the kid improved...

I can't comment, because I can't understand what he is saying.

Cochrane knew what they were doing, and what the consequences would be. There is nothing unintentional or innocent about this.

“There are others who have... ...developed a post Covid psychiatric illness.” Can't imagine who he might be thinking of. :speechless:

What is moral about imposing increasing hardship on, or simply abandoning, large numbers of sick or disabled people? All while telling them that it is for their own good? Or more and better quality research to find effective treatments or even prevent these problems in the first place?

The most important advice would be to not pay any attention to advice from the psycho-behavioural school.

For anybody having trouble watching these videos via S4ME, they can be found on this YT channel.

Okay, so they can more effectively inculcate medical ignorance and error in the next generation of doctors. And the value of that to patients is...?

At what point does this level of dishonesty become fraud?

The whole psychosomatic project is the greatest and cruelest catastrophe in modern medicine. Hands down winner. Not even close to second place. The degree, ubiquity, and sheer persistence of technical and ethical failure at all levels of governance required for this to situation to come about...

Or they could just say: 'We don't know.' But I guess there are no careers in that.

By far the hardest thing I have ever had to do.